The economics of the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup
When the carnival is over, what will be the legacy beyond the boost in trade and tourism?
Almost six years ago, I wrote a piece about the crowd for an Australian national women’s soccer match in Penrith.
The official attendance was 15,089 when the Matildas won a friendly against the well-fancied Brazil team in spectacular style.
The packed crowd was treated to a feast of quality football, with a highly-skilled strike by Lisa de Vanna and a glancing header by Sam Kerr, as Australia won 2-1.
And now look at the excitement the Matildas are drawing as Australia and New Zealand co-host the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup.
The tournament is the biggest event Australia has hosted since the pandemic and one of the biggest hosted since the Sydney Olympics in 2000.
Moreover, hosting it with our trans-Tasman cousins in New Zealand makes it extra special.
But what are the benefits of hosting major events? Are they worthwhile and long lasting? Or do they cost too much? After all, we had the case of the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil, where new stadiums and airports were built in the Amazon only to lie idle after the tournament was over. And of course Sochi, where the Russian government overspent its planned budget to a show of force.
Could it be that only OECD economies can hold major sporting events? Or places like Qatar, host of last year’s FIFA World Cup, which have deep pockets thanks to its sovereign wealth fund?
In fact, Matt Carroll, CEO of the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC), explains the new candidature model of hosting under the International Olympic Committee (IOC)’s “New Norm” saves bidding expenses and countries (especially ones with limited resources) attempting to outbid each other.
Read more of Tim Harcourt's story on Footyology
